Monday, November 21, 2005

Hey, By BOMB Iraq, I didn't mean "Invade"

Rumsfeld tap dances around his initial commitment to go to war on an interview, Sunday. Now even the top players in the house of cards are losing their velcro-like attachment to Bush's misguided and mismanaged dreams of world order.

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has asserted that he did not press for the US-led invasion of Iraq, as public disaffection for the US military operation there reaches new highs.

"I didn't advocate invasion," Rumsfeld told ABC television Sunday, when asked if he would have advocated an invasion of Iraq if he had known that no weapons of mass destruction would be found there. whole story.

Why didn't that little fact come up, he was asked? "No one asked me."

No one asked the Secretary of Defense if he thought our country should invade another country? This guy gets no respect.

He followed that up with a statement that he completely agreed to go to war. So he didn't advocate it - but he merely completely agreed with it.

advocate: "One that argues for a cause; a supporter or defender."
agree: "To grant consent"

In other words - "I was just following orders."

Sounds like he's distancing himself a bit from the bruhaha over the continue failed war effort that he's master minding, ney?

Just have to give you some omore of this:

"But Rumsfeld's insistence that he had not advocated an invasion of Iraq appears to contradict several media reports, and at least one book by a former White House couter-terrorism chief.

CBS News has reported, citing notes by Pentagon officials, that Rumsfeld told his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq hours after the September 11, 2001 attacks on Washington and New York.

The notes, cited by CBS, quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough to hit S.H. (Saddam Hussein)".

Former White House terrorism czar, Richard Clarke, said in his book "Against all Enemies" that days after the September 11 attacks, Rumsfeld was pushing for retaliatory strikes on Iraq, despite questions over Iraq's links to Al-Qaeda.

Clarke suggests the idea took him so aback, he initally thought Rumsfeld was joking.

"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke has said in describing White House deliberations after the September 11 attacks.

In other words: "Give me best info fast, because I'm not advocating an attack, merely agreeing on something I haven't been asked about yet, that I'm in complete agreement with." Well, it would be classic Rumsfeld double talk.

I don't know if it tops "stuff happens" his brilliant defense against the looting during the lack of post-war planning that helped devastate Bahgdad, or "Death has a tendancy encourage a depressing view of war" or even his classic:""I would not say that the future is necessarily less predictable than the past. I think the past was not predictable when it started."

But it is significant that a crack in the armor of conviction has appeared in the President's top defensive officer.

The War is just not going well, and that's just such a drag, isn't it? After all the neat and tidy theories and scenarios in the bounce house.


Blogger steff81 said...

Peter: why don't you have your own blog?

I'll admit that when Peter first started posting comments I was relieved to see someone making some points that weren't just the usual I-hate-this-administration type comments. But lately, even I'm having a hard time sifting through the personal attacks.

While I usually disagree with the opinions on here, I still stop by and read it fairly frequently because the guys that write in this blog usually challenge me to think about why I feel a certain way or why I believe a certain thing. It's good to have your thoughts and ideas challenged to make sure that you're really seeing the whole picture.

And I've also mentioned this to Philip, but I like the fact that its more educational, so to speak, rather than just you're not in our club because you don't feel the same as we do. At least that's how it is for me. But lately the personal attacks have drowned out the comments.

BP: you're pretty trusting to open up and share personal stories on here. I can respect your circumstance without having to make fun of it...even if I happen to disagree. I'm sorry that some comments were made that weren't flattering to your STBEW.

Anyway, here is to many more posts that inspire and challenge my thought process in all things political!

1:15 PM, November 21, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

i'm not sure when i made disparaging remarks regarding balloons wife.

in fact i said that these were very tragic circumstances that he shared with us. i also said that he's obviously lived a rich life.

and when the personal attacks were launched, i agreed with 99% of the ones thrown my way and added a few on top for good measure.

and far as having my own blog, i'm simply not that smart nor versed in anything spectacular.

also, steph, when things are said with a little self deprecating humor, perhaps such things should not be taken so seriously.

2:33 PM, November 21, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

when zarqawi bombed the wedding in jordan a few weeks ago, what happened?

"Hundreds of thousands of Zarqawi's fellow Jordanians fill the streets to demand his death."
-the london telegraph

don't worry, i'm slowly getting to a point...

"But, if there were just 1,500 folks shouting "Great Satan, go home!" in Baghdad or Mosul, it would be large enough for the media to do that little trick where they film the demo close up so it looks like the place is packed. Yet no such demonstrations take place."
-london telegraph

"In war, there are usually only two exit strategies: victory or defeat. The latter's easier. Just say, whoa, we're the world's pre-eminent power but we can't handle an unprecedently low level of casualties, so if you don't mind we'd just as soon get off at the next stop.

"Demonstrating the will to lose as clearly as America did in Vietnam wasn't such a smart move, but since the media can't seem to get beyond this ancient jungle war it may be worth underlining the principal difference: Osama is not Ho Chi Minh, and al-Qa'eda are not the Viet Cong. If you exit, they'll follow. And Americans will die - in foreign embassies, barracks, warships, as they did through the Nineties, and eventually on the streets of US cities, too."
-london telegraph

"as they did through the nineties." see, this is something that you guys on this blog have failed to mention. that ol' boy clinton had plenty of opportunities to go after usama and his merry band of murderers. but guess what? he didn't.

9/11 happened after many, many, many attacks and subsequent deaths.

now we're in there, in iraq, fighting the enemy and for now keeping them away from home soil and you guys just want to cut and run. disappointing.

Perhaps you should go back and watch the footage from that dreadful day and ask if you really want the u.s. to back out of this high stakes war. psychologically that gives the enemy the edge. we will look like the weak western dogs they think we are and allow them to plan more atrocious events on our soil that would make 9/11 look like a cakewalk.

5:14 PM, November 21, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

was reading that old hate monger steyn from the chicago sun-times. reminds us of a song they sang in during the great war:

"And we won't come back

Till it's over

Over there!"

so you dems want a pull out date.

what message will a date like this send to our enemies? don't ya think, we set a date like that and, as steyn mentions, a nasty big car explosive will go off on the day that we hand iraq over?

but why am i asking democrats to possibly think into the future, to not be so myopic about this war.

steyn wraps things up nicely. i know the following quote will make you sputter and spit that i'm not being "original." but if you guys can quote ad nauseaum from your left wing manuals, i can quote from my hateful war-mongering columnist:

"One expects nothing from the Democrats. Their leaders are men like Jay Rockefeller, Democrat of West Virginia, who in 2002 voted for the war and denounced Saddam Hussein as an "imminent threat" and claimed that Iraq could have nuclear weapons by 2007 if not earlier. Now he says it's Bush who "lied" his way into war with a lot of scary mumbo-jumbo about WMD.

"What does Rockefeller believe, really? I know what Bush believes: He thought Saddam should go in 2002 and today he's glad he's gone, as am I. I know what, say, Michael Moore believes: He wanted to leave Saddam in power in 2002, and today he thinks the "insurgents" are the Iraqi version of America's Minutemen. But what do Rockefeller and Reid and Kerry believe deep down? That voting for the war seemed the politically expedient thing to do in 2002 but that they've since done the math and figured that pandering to the crowd is where the big bucks are? If Bush is the new Hitler, these small hollow men are the equivalent of those grubby little Nazis whose whining defense was, "I was only obeying orders. I didn't really mean all that strutting tough-guy stuff." And, before they huff, "How dare you question my patriotism?", well, yes, I am questioning your patriotism -- because you're failing to meet the challenge of the times. Thanks to you, Iraq is a quagmire -- not in the Sunni Triangle, where U.S. armed forces are confident and effective, but on the home front, where soft-spined national legislators have turned the war into one almighty Linguini Triangle."

he continues...

"But look at the news from France and ask yourself what that's really about? At heart, it's the failure of Europe's political class to grasp the profound and rapid changes already under way. This Senate is making the same fatal error. I'd advocate throwing the bums out if there were any alternative bums to throw in. But maybe the Thomas R. Harkin Centers for Disease Control could persuade them to be the first deliberative body to donate itself to medical science."

6:06 PM, November 21, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

you guys go on and on... o'reilsky incites terrorism?

i'll tell you who is inciting terrorism:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad when he said that Israel should be wiped off the map.

but the best you guys can come up with is O'reilster incites terrorism. puhleeeeze, there's real killers out there wanting to wipe a whole people off our planet.

that's why nothing, nothing will change in '06 or '08.


6:29 PM, November 21, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

Most shameful has been the Democratic Party's failure to oppose the war. Indeed, support for it has been bipartisan: A Republican President and Congress made the policy, and almost all of the leading Democrats supported it from the outset and continue to do so.

-the nation, nov 9, 2005

a party of hypocrits and contradictions.

i know that balloon will say i'm attempting to change minds here, but all i am doing is juxtaposing everyting that is said on this website. i am using the dems own words, from the nation to dicky morris to koch and more, to prove that you guys stumble and fumble, vote for a war, why? to get votes? to what? steyn's right. nothing more than the little men in the nazi party. dirty hands, rubbing together... how can we trick the elctorate.

as i've said from the word go: whether you agree or no, at least you know what bush stands for.

please, someone, tell me: what the hell does the democratic party stand for?


write in small words as i can't understand a real lot...

6:38 PM, November 21, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

steph, i was doing a little searching on this blog over the past couple of months before i joined this cheery group. apart from a few, most of the comments have had very low numbers indeed.

perhaps i have actually, single-handedly, made these angry guys do a little thinking. some of these posts have forty reponses! forty!

in the oct archives there's a lot of 2's, 1's and two 0's in a row.

there's that bond movie where at the end the dispicable, skinny, nerd stands up and screams:

(in russian accent) i am invincible!

right before he gets killed.

truth be told, and i know it's sad, but hell, sad individuals have to take it where they can get it, but i'm feeling pretty invincible right now!

6:55 PM, November 21, 2005  
Blogger Philip Morton said...

Steff: glad to see you back.

Wow Peter, thanks for the entertainment. You write almost as much fiction as I do. Difference is, mine is interesting. And I can sell it.

But you’re great with half-points and half-logic. Does that make you a half-wit?

Woops! That’s name calling, something you’re particularly sensitive too, and make pains to point out you don’t do.

Woops again – you do name call, in fact, you love it! Let’s see “BP, you’re pathetic,” “your typical leftist hypocrisy” “You’re a boring experiment in the weak minded…”

Oh – wait that’s you being “funny”, my bad brother, you’re just being funny. I’ll add treating people like crap to my comedy lexicon. Then if they object, just label it comedy. Let’s see – “Petering out of ideas yet?’’ no – wait, that is funny. “Maybe things’ll just take a Peturn for the worse any time you make a point?” Nah, too interesting. You’re -


That’s it.

Hey, lighten up, I’m just kidding. And you’re right! It is funny to call people names! (it’s my first time on this blog!)

As for taking Clinton to task for not attacking Osama. You regurgitate your GOP teachers well, but it has little to do with reality. So let’s try this again.

(And you’re right – some comments now have 40 posts! You tend to be about 30 of them.

Before you arrived the comments sections were small, but audience has maintained a very healthy level based on statcounter.

But hey, glad you’re finding meaning somewhere.)

So take a breath on the big couch where you spend your nights watching tv, you bang your chest with mea culpas that dems aren’t open minded. Well, just because you keep handing out crap sandwhiches and no one takes them, doesn’t mean there are no open minds, merely those that can smell the whiff of crap.

Hey, lighten up, I’m just joking.

So see if you’ve got a few synapses that aren’t fried yet by the constant on-line porn viewing and are available to take this in:

1) Clinton did some surgical strikes against terrorist posts in the
middle east. And Congress assailed him on every one.

Not good enough for you? Or was that Reagan who did that? No, Reagan pulled the marines out of Lebanon when they were bombed. Cut and ran. Okay, just keeping score.

2) Clinton went into the shattered Yugoslovia, and Europe was greatful, against constant GOP backlash. American lives lost – zero. Just keeping score.

2) Clinton was under constant criticism for being a
non-veteran. He had to run an entire military offensive using nothing but high-level bombers, NOT because it was the best way to do it, but because it was the ONLY way he could do it.

Bush of course is just a – non-veteran.

3) Perhaps Bush should have gone after Bin Laden as well.

But wait, America was attacked! 9/11, you seem to keep leaving that out Peter. Would it have been a great idea to stay in Afghanistan and get the guy that did it? Hey – two plus two equals – wait for it – aah, Bush left Afghanistan. Couldn’t get an answer.

Oh, hey we did attack Afghanistan, don’t forget that! Bush started in the right country, and then – cut and ran! Wanted the oil, baby. To finish Daddy’s job. He forgot to read Daddy’s book on why he didn’t go into Bahgdad.

4) What Bush HAS done is create a perfect breeding ground for terrorists in Iraq. Point being, guess where they’re going to come whether we stay there or not? That is frightening. Would they have come from Iraq if we didn’t invade? Um…no. Hussein had no designs on America. It was the other guy!

5) Sending soldiers screaming through the desert to Baghdad, only to have them stand around and say "NOW what" was not a very smart campaign.

Hey, but you’re a funny guy. That’s your whole point whenever your called on misquotes, missed facts, and misanthropic statements, right? Maybe we’ll vote you “Miss Quote” of 2005? You should consider it, you’re already in the semi-finals, and the gift bag alone is worth the trouble.

You must find the war kind of funny. You certainly don’t seem to care about winning it. I mean, sure, you don’t want to retreat, you want to win. Breakthrough idea. I wish someone else had thought of this in the chain of command. You’re right, there are two options, win or leave. So let’s hear thoughts on winning it. Which means you want to cut and paste some more? Rather than write your own ideas? Go ahead, we’ll wait for your index finger to get some feeling back into it from the last group.

Oh yes, Peter, fighting there makes us safer, here – don’t forget that! Except the cost is bankrupting the country and making new and improved bad guys every day over there who they’re getting ready to export. And when they come here – because you know they’re coming now - we won’t have any soldiers here!

Any thoughts on bringing back any of the third tour, strung out, overwhelmed and scarred youth of America back home? Any thoughts on them still not having enough armor? Any thoughts on 20,000 homeless people identified in this country as Iraq war vets? You see a problem here?

Didn’t mean to offend you with asking for some thoughts, by the way.

Hey, lighten up, I’m joking!

Oh, you do care? The war is a serious matter? Don’t hear any ideas about ending it without the cut and run. You think we look weak cutting and running? We’ve never looked weaker in history – the biggest super power, hit EVERY DAY over there and unable to stop it, being beaten by kids in rags, and now we’re shown to the world to be torturing prisoners, not maintaining the army with armor, because the country is BROKE, borrowing money from foreign nations at an all time unprecedented amount, to fund a war on foreign soil, the VP urging congress to put the right to torture back into the defense bill, unable to help our own people at home during a natural disaster for days up days as they die, cutting veteran's Medical coverage, recruitment at historic lows...

Nah, I take it back, we’re looking great, why talk about changing anything?

Oh, another complaint - you ask questions and no one answers? Wait, Cranky et. Al. Seemed to have answered up down and sideways, with sources. But you keep serving those crap sandwhiches and wonder why no one’s coming back to Petie’s Diner.

Hey, no harm, no foul, just joking around. And Fire Down Below was a bad movie. You finally said something right!

As for getting us riled up, you think you rile us up? Take a look at the last five years of lies, flip flops, bait and switch and trails of indictments. There were people in line before you. They’re literally breaking the country. What they say actually matters. But don’t stop coming by. We’re always happy to be entertained.

10:10 PM, November 21, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

crap sandwiches? that was cruel, philip, too cruel. i think you crossed a line... jeez, don't know how to respond... uh... uh... still thinking...

okay, clinton, great guy, hear he was good with the ladies, even when they didn't want to sleep with his greasy big mac charm, he'd still get his way...

yeah, that guy bill, bombed an asprin factory outta the blue in iraq when the noose was gettin' tighter during monica-gate...

... but i don't remember him leading an offensive in the middle east after the first wtc bombing. do you?

or the american embassy bombing in africa. do you?

or after the uss cole. do you?

or how 'bout after usama declared war against us in '98. did clinton get out of that macdonalds to do the right thing? no.

but toss in a blow job, mix in a lie or two and suddenly he's calling for air strikes against asprin factories. okay... that's cool, man...

"Clinton went into the shattered Yugoslovia, and Europe was greatful, against constant GOP backlash. American lives lost – zero." we don't only agree that your flying seagal was a bad movie (i actually didn't see it, never would. it's kinda just like trash to me, those souless flix. no point, weak themes, terrible writing and worst of all, stevie himself) but i agree with you here. now i know you guys ignore when i actually agree with you 'cause you all gotta show what a big bad republican i am, but i'll even one-up you on the success of billy boy's last three years in power:

i like that he also was responsible for the expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe, and the successful navigation of the 1997–98 global financial crisis.

how's that? c'mon, a little surprised that i would give a two thumbs up to your guy?

"Oh, hey we did attack Afghanistan, don’t forget that! Bush started in the right country, and then – cut and ran!" i believe we're still in afghanistan mr morton, sir. with the brits and canadians too... uh, is this what you'd call a crap sandwich?

meanwhile, you want more troops at home? get 'em outta germany and japan! there's an idea, sir. i mean, respectfully...

side note: i am gunning for miss quote of the year... i really want it.

side note 2: for a writer, you ramble alot. no focus. you've sprinkled so many facts amongst a great big heap of comedy in your comments, i am trying to get to it all... but i'm not sure what your theme is... hostility, anger? i'm not sure!

oh! now you've confused me! i'm going to watch tv now, mr morton. but, i'm happy that i've been invited back onto your blog to entertain you. and don't you worry, i'll be back with another new song and dance for ya!

2:11 AM, November 22, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

and just as an aside, since you were "keeping score" phil:

wtc bombing #1: 6 dead

us embassies in africa: 225 dead

uss cole: 17 dead

and yet clinton was too busy planting dna evidence on a dress rather than go after usama, who had already announced his holy war against us.

or, didn't his threat and these deaths "count"?

5:04 AM, November 22, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"cut and run"- somalia 1993...

can easily be see in a powerful film "blackhawk."

a big blunder in u.s. strategy. gave the enemies an idea that we like to engage and get the hell out when the going gets tough.

6:15 AM, November 22, 2005  
Blogger United We Lay said...

Can we vote Peter off the island?

6:26 AM, November 22, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

the reason why nothing will alter for the dems in '06 or '08, unless they seriously change: they betray their own supporters.

a couple of days ago, the dems hawkish, heroic john murths, a vietnam vet, delivered a tearful, and passionate denunciation of the war in iraq. he announced that he would soon introduce a resolution for immediate withdrawal of our troops.

the republicans came back with a very clear resolution to vote on based on murtha's resolution: "... That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of Inited States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."

pretty clear, isn't it? no ifs and or buts. everything everyone wants, right? especially the writers of this blog. this was your big chance for your party to stand up for what you think they believe in. so, what did they do...?

... faced with a clear choice, the House voted 403 to three against immediate withdrawal. john murtha joined the majority against withdrawal.

as i keep saying: like him or no, you know where bush stands. what does the democratic party stand for?

11:44 AM, November 22, 2005  
Blogger Cranky Yankee said...

They didn't vote against withdrawal they voted against immediate withdrawal. If the resolution had said something along the lines of what Murtha actually is saying it would have most likely passed.

If you don't see the difference between the ridiculous gop resolution and what Murtha said I understand why you love shrubco so much.

Stubborn isn't a good trait.

12:04 PM, November 22, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

so what is it you guys want?

if not immediate withdrawal, when?

i mean, it seems all the dems can do is debate and redebate why we went to war. you never tire of it.

but ask what should we do NOW, all they can answer (in the words of democratic national committee chairman howard dean) "right now it's not our job to give out specifics."

oh... really?

so if not now, when will it be there job?

"When the time is right" say rep. rahm emanuel.

wow! that seesm to be a party with a strong sense of what it wants and it'll fight tooth and nail to see it come to fruition.

so far none of your guys will vote for immediate withdrawal, yet won't repudiate the idea either. you won't stand up and say:

"bush is screwing up in iraq, but by god we're not going to run. we're going to stay and win. see it through to the end because we're the party of truman and kennedy! and here's how we're gonna do it!..."

no hillary, no anyone...

but this seems to be a weak-knee'd party run by michael moore or worse, phillip morton (hey, just joking Phil!).

1:23 PM, November 22, 2005  
Blogger Cranky Yankee said...

I don't think you're paying attention. Murtha made a specific proposal with a 6 month timeline. Also, I think I posted here before concrening the senate proposal in reference to the war that the gop copied from the democrats and "edited" calling for shrubco to report to congress quarterly on the war etc.. The part they edited out was a timeoine for withdrawal.

Pay attention. All that rush limbaugh is rotting you brain and making you sound stupid.

2:13 PM, November 22, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

seriously, man, i don't listen to rush. never have. i like to read. but like i said before, i mainly look at the pictures. and the literature tends to be of the magazine variety.

cranky, that's cool and everything, but as a democrat, what do you think is gonna change in iraq in 6 months that would make sense to withdraw at that time?

why not just do it now, get it over with? because gettin' the hell out of there now or in 6 months will lead to the same result: tragedy.

wouldn't you be more proud if your party took bushy-boy to task and said, "forget running! we're gonna win, and here's how." i mean, honestly, kennedy and truman, think they would want to get out? or would they find a way to win?

2:19 PM, November 22, 2005  
Blogger Cranky Yankee said...

First of all I'm not a democrat. That said, I personally feel we should leave right now and let them have their civil war and kill each other all they want. But that's not very reasonable is it?

I think a timetable has to be tied to a series of regional summit meetings where we hand the problem over to the arab world. Until the arabs address the wealth inequities and the poverty that fosters this type of hate and violence there will always be a great satan that is propping up repressive regimes to the benefit of the few.

This is nothing more than history repeatung itself over and over again. We replcaed the Brits. They replaced the Ottoman's as so forth and so forth...

3:40 PM, November 22, 2005  
Blogger Cranky Yankee said...

Oh yeah, proof they lied

4:45 PM, November 22, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

cranky, just read your first paragraph... i have to agree with you there. and not just a little... however, if we cut out now, what does that say about us? that we engage like in vietnam... like somalia... and when there's even the sniff of tough battles ahead, we storm out quicker than we came in? we're better... we're stronger and anything less would be inviting the terrorists onto our streets. the perception will no longer be of the sleeping bear, but of the fat and weak dog, running away at the first sign of trouble. i'm not prepared to accept that.

i also agree that it's time to get the iraqis to start defending their liberties. but i also think we should retreat only so far after this is done properly. that we should have a presence there as we have in japan and germany (and, as i said before, we're not needed in those countries anymore).

this region is filled with hatred for western democracy. they scream their slogans of hatred and wish to wipe isreal and america off of the planet. cutting out is not the answer.

beating back the insurgents is...

supplying the proper training for the iraqis is...

and then having a quiet, yet powerful presence in the region is...

4:53 PM, November 22, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

cranky, just saw your most recent post.

i hate to sound like ballon or mr morton, or polanco, but, just todat in that rag of an e-zine, frontpagemag, i read an article that, from the right wing point of view, according to the writer, proves that not only the u.s., but also britain, germany and france all shared the same intelligence that saddam had wmds and was prepared to use them... and i was thinking of sharing this article (obviously you can check it out yourself, now). but i stopped, because i just don't believe he lied. and that's my own stupidity. but that's the conclusion i have come to with everything i have read over here on the right. over there on the left, you believe he did lie. it's become a moot point now.

what's more important is the discussion we've been having: get out or stay in. what are the consequences of each?

and i repect what you said and do agree, to a degree...

4:59 PM, November 22, 2005  
Blogger Cranky Yankee said...

So this is all about saving face?

That's just plain ignorant. Sometimes you have to eat a little crow and admit you made a mistake. Invading Iraq was a mistake. The only way to save face is to do the right thing. Admit we were wrong. Call the parties together and broker peace. We have no innate right to meddle in the affairs of sovereign nations that did nothing to us.

What makes us look weak is turning away from pursuing and punishing the people that attacked us in order to invade and occupy Iraq. It says to the world we will turn away from a legitimate fight in order to satisfy our greed.

4:39 AM, November 23, 2005  
Blogger Cranky Yankee said...

This whole concept of inviting terrorists onto our streets is ridiculous. As long as we are supporting corrupt regimes and oppressive monarchies we will be targets. If our corporate interests interfere with these societies then we invite the terrorists onto our streets. We need to stop acting like an empire for the glorification of our own greed. As soon as the American people realize that it is not they who the Arabs hate, but how they are represented as an influence peddling, corrupting, greed driven corporate machine then we can understand how to fight terrorism.

Everything we have seen has been a symptom of something greater. It's history.

What do you think the Arab world thought of us arming and building up Iran as a military power in the 60's and 70's? The Shah and his CIA backed secret police were brutal and the Iranian people had enough. Who do you think they blamed? When that went bad and the Iranians rose up and overthrew the Shah in 1979 we turned to Iraq.

We created Saddam's military power. We made him the neighborhood bully. We were seen as a corrupting force meddling in the region fostering the bloody war between Saddam and our former ally Iran. We gave Saddam his chemical weapons. We greenlighted his use of them against the Iranians and turned a blind eye when he used them on the Kurds in 1987.

When we broke with Iraq in 1990 and began the military build up in Saudi Arabia, what do you think that looked like? The Saudi Royal family leads one of the region's most brutal and oppressive regimes. To the poverty stricken Arabs the thought of a repeat of Iran or Iraq in the holy land is just too much.

So as long as we are treating the symptoms the underlying cause continues to fester. The invasion of Iraq was a colossal blunder. It confirmed decades of anti-American rhetoric and predictions. We proved we are what they say we are.

4:50 AM, November 23, 2005  
Blogger boni said...

Brilliantly said Crank.

8:47 AM, November 23, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

this is not about saving face. saving face would be the iraqis were kicking our asses and we turned tail and left.


... al qaeda is there. flooding in through the borders, chomping at the bit to blow up some western infidels and stop iraq from choosing democrasy over tyranny.

and that is why i say that cutting loose, when the enemy is there, will invite them to chase us back home and continue this war on our streets. i mean, if the terrorist thugs think they can get us out of iraq, well then, they've just encountered a glass ceiling that they will be excited to shatter. 9/11 would look like a cake walk.

12:44 PM, November 23, 2005  
Blogger Cranky Yankee said...


You missed the point.

4:45 PM, November 23, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

not sure what i missed. guess that's just par for the course, as polanco would say. i'm really getting used to all of these cheap slogans you guys use...

now, if you're talking about the historical lesson you gave, how we've replaced the brits and so on... guess i'll just have to take your word for it.

as far as saying that inviting terrorists onto our streets is a ridiculous statement, well, what'd ya call 9/11...

but i guess that can be traced back to the whole replacing the brits theory...

... or it can be traced back to '98 when usama waged war against us because we are the great satan...

it seems like yesterday you were making semi sense, now i'm getting some history that equates the u.s. with the ottoman empire, or some such-

-zzz zzz...

6:41 PM, November 23, 2005  
Blogger Philip Morton said...

in the end, however we disagree about how we got over there, w'ere there. And Peter, I agree with you that's it's impossible to believe Bush lied as much as the left says he did, it's heartbreaking really, and you're clearly passionate and steadfast in your beliefs and I appreciate that. To imagine he lied would betray a very deep trust. I feel he did, and it's hearbreaking for me too, but it's all part of the great disagreement, I suppse.

Now that we're there in Iraq, I think every American wants to win. Even Clinton said to pull out right away is the wrong move. But defining the "win" is the big disagreement, as well, I think. You feel there is more win to be had, I'm not sure, and think we're sliding away from the win we did have. I don't really expect to change your point of view, but do appreciate how passionately you love this country and want the best thing for the country, and have made clear how you see it.

12:35 AM, November 24, 2005  
Blogger Cranky Yankee said...

Peter, Ask yourself why "they" consider us the great satan?

As far as understanding our relationship in the middle east to the British, the Ottoman Empire, etc, I would suggest you read up on the history of the middle east. I would also suggest you research the Islamic concepts of Ummah and Jihad. Your lack of the basic understanding of what we face is staggering.

And just so you know. The 911 attacks and every Al Qaeda attack since 1991 were aimed at getting us to remove our military forces from Saudi Arabia, which we did in 2003. So I guess, to that extent, the attacks worked.

7:17 AM, November 24, 2005  
Blogger Cranky Yankee said...

"... or it can be traced back to '98 when usama waged war against us because we are the great satan..."

Not true he waged war on us because he saw us as occupying the holy land.

""The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim."

I'm just saying, this myth that these Isalmic radicals want to destroy America just because we exist is a red herring. It is designed to distract us from what they really want which is to remove external forces from influencing them by supporting corrupt and opressive regimes and the Muslim self interests.

8:06 AM, November 24, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

philip: thanks for the words you wrote. it was very appreciated.

cranky: you asked me to study the concepts of ummah and jihad... i'm not sure what your point is...

jihad, from what i understand, is used for both the internal spiritual struggle as well as the external struggle against an evil that is perceived as being cosmic and timeless. if i'm wrong, please correct me, because even discussing the nature of jihad should give us all pause and think, "if we don't end this thing, if we don't squash the fanatics- who think this is a timeless struggle against all that is evil- into a loss of such psychological proportions, when the hell is it ever going to end?"

Ummah from my understanding, means the community of Islam, or the entire Islamic community.

And, from sources i was reading they seemed to indicate that some muslims believe in a future islamic state that would also include others of minority religions all living under shariah law.

if that's true, that's a scarey ideology and, i'm sure you'll call me out on being an ignoramus, but isn't that kinda what Hitler wanted to do? i mean minus the whole minority thing, the super race would all live under one rule?

what kinds of rights would women have under an all imposing shariah? what would happen to their right to divorce an abusive husband? or other freedoms women around the world enjoy. i shudder at the thought.

what about the freedom to debate, as we have been doing?

so, cranky, i'm not sure what you wanted me to take from this further reading. i mean, it may just be the turkey and wine, but if anything, reading and writing about these two things makes me believe that our prescence in the middle east will be part of our survival over the next decade...

... and i don't mean outright war that we have today...

... i mean getting the iraqis into a state of better independence to defend everything they have accomplished especially after dec 15. they will have to defend what they have continued to so bravely turn out for at the polls...

... then we should retreat into our bases... and stand guard in the middle east as we have done for too long in germany and japan.

and cranky, i must read-up more of the middle east history. But the emphasis is on the word history. And not to disrespect history, but out of repect for the present and the future, what are we going to do now? if we get out of iraq now, or in 6 months, what kind of psychological victory would that be to the fanatics?

and now, i must wish everyone a wonderful thanksgiving. we've had a rough couple of weeks together, you and i, but that's what makes this country beautiful: we're all passionate, we're all vocal and we all love our freedom. i think on this, we can all agree.

5:32 PM, November 24, 2005  
Blogger Cranky Yankee said...

You took an extreme connotation of Jihad and Unmah made it into what you needed to justify your position.

You seem to be confusing many issues into one. Islam does not call for the domination of the world as you imply. Islam is more than a religion. It's aim is not to be exported or spread, but in those area where it is practiced there can be no higher authority than god and his law. Shari 'a or Islamic law is not repressive in and of itself. The repression comes from those who interpret it and have the power to enforce their interpretation. By your logic we have created what we are fighting against in Iraq. Your circular logic fails when you claim to support the democratic self-determination of the Iraqis but condemn what they have chosen as evil that needs to be destroyed. Which is it?

Iraq was a secular state in which woman had more rights than they have now under the new Iraqi constitution. Article 2 says that Islam is the official state religion and the basic source of all legislation. No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam (Shari 'a). In the Shiite areas rules involving women have already been enforced and woman across Iraq are being intimidated, arrested and even murder for trying to work. yes, the government has a percentage of women but that will change. In the last election women that ran for parliament had to run anonymously in fear of their lives. And guess what, the rape and torture rooms are as active as they ever were under Saddam.

By your logic we have made it worse in Iraq. So do we need to destroy the Iraq government now? When do we invade Saudi Arabia, the most repressive regime in the entire middle east and the root of all the trouble? Oh that's right shrubco is all kissy kissy with his sponsors in the royal family so they are good Muslims, right?


5:34 AM, November 25, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

"The repression comes from those who interpret it and have the power to enforce their interpretation."

i'm not sure if you heard, but in ontario, canada, the provincial government actually considered having sharia law implemented for the muslim immigrants... this came about from a demand from this community that they would use their adopted land, not only to practice their religion freely, but also to transfer their laws instead of obeying canada's.

i always believed that if you can't get elected, you can't be a lawmaker.

Under Sharia, “a woman's testimony ... counts only as half that of a man. So in straight disagreements between husband and wife, the husband’s testimony will normally prevail. In questions of inheritance, whilst under Canadian law sons and daughters would be treated equally, under the Sharia daughters receive only half the portion of sons. If the Institute were to have jurisdiction in custody cases, the man will automatically be awarded custody once the children have reached an age of between seven and nine years.”

"Among Canada’s 600,000 Muslims, however, not everyone welcomes this move and fears that Muslim women, who only count as half a man under Sharia, have been addressed by nothing but platitudes of the “trust us” variety."

-val mcqueen

there's much more to sharia law than what you say and i have to disagree that the fanatics don't want to export or spread their beliefs because that is what they are trying to do in canada, and other european countries.

meanwhile, for now, the sharia debate is dead in canada, because of the freedom muslim woman have in that country to get their voices heard. unequivocally, they did not want the sharia law implemented in their adopted homeland. gee, i wonder why?

you say i took an extreme defintion of jihad and umman. aren't these extremists we're talking about? PLus, i don't think we're talking about the average muslim here. the average iraqi doesn't want to blow himself up to take out a few infidels. the average muslim wants to live in peace.

cranky, we disagree because you're trying to paint all muslims under the peaceful label (don't want to export and so on).

but i'm not talking about the average muslim. i'm talking about the suicide bombers that have come out of the wood work. those are the guys that have twisted their religion into the definitions above and then fly planes into buildings.

6:35 AM, November 25, 2005  
Blogger Cranky Yankee said...

But you don't have a problem with the U.S. military occupying Iraq in order to support an extreme interpretation of Shari 'a that is oppressive to women...

That is where your logic falls down.

The case of Ontario makes my point. The Muslim community rejected an extreme interpretation of Shari 'a. Do you see a difference in the economic state of the Muslims involved? Every Muslim lives under Shari 'a. Even the ones that live in the U.S. It's just like Christians living under the rules in Leviticus. It's all up to interpretation.

As far as the average Muslim goes, do you think he sees us in a better light occupying Iraq? Don't you think he would see us in a better light if we were to admit we screwed up and tried to fix it? Do you think they see it as any coincidence that we invaded an oil rich Muslim country saying we did it to rid oppression while we ignore more oppressive regimes in Muslim countries without oil?

Also, I would like to see you quote some documented evidence that show that Al Qaeda or the "terrorists" we are fighting, want to take over the world . Everywhere they are fighting it is either to make someone stop doing something in the Middle east, to expel westerners, as in Iraq, or to defend Muslims, as in Chechnya or the Balkans .

8:13 AM, November 25, 2005  
Blogger Cranky Yankee said...

I think we can agree that Al qaeda has to go and fighting against this support network is the right thing to do.

Our point of departure is right after al qaeda must go. Yes, capturing, destroying or dismantling al qaeda is a good thing. But I don't think you even understand why. Apart from the obvious fact that they sanctioned and supported attacks against Americans, including 911, you don't seem to understand why they are so dangerous and what is at the root of what makes them so. Osama Bin Laden and his ilk use Islamic fundamentalism to their own ends. They crave power to impose their will. They are dangerous criminals who must bo stopped. But what makes them so dangerous is that the Arab world is so willing to tolerate, support and yes particapte with them based on not what the(al qaeda) do but what is or has been done to them (the arabs) over the years. It's much like poor rural whites in America being easily susceptible to the message of white suspremists and being driven, like Timothy McVie, to violence. Economic and social conditions that are contrary to the way they believe they should and deserve to be. Therefore someone or something else is to blame.

8:24 AM, November 25, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

fair enough cranky... i do understand your point on the perception of america and the history between our country and the middle east.

i really have no arguement based on this specific topic as my education only scratches the surface. can i comprehend what you're saying? fully.

do i agree or disagree? impossible to say right now.

but you've certainly given me reason to find out what it that answer is.

3:28 PM, November 25, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

i didn't see your second last post...

... to be frank, i've had one kick ass day and i don't want to be seen as "running from the issues" as polanco has accused me of in the past, but i'm too tired to respond to this today.

i promise, because this has been so fun, that i will post tomorrow.

thanks cranky

3:34 PM, November 25, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...


something to whet your appetite as i take my 24 hr (or less) sabbatical:

By Anthony Browne
The Guardian | January 27, 2005

Islam really does want to conquer the world. That’s because Muslims, unlike many Christians, actually believe they are right, and that their religion is the path to salvation for all

A year ago I had lunch with an eminent figure who asked if I thought she was mad. ‘No,’ I said politely, while thinking, ‘Yup.’ She had said she thought there was a secret plot by Muslims to take over the West. I have never been into conspiracy theories, and this one was definitely of the little-green-men variety. It is the sort of thing BNP thugs claim to justify their racial hatred.

Obviously, we all know about Osama bin Laden’s ambitions. And we are all aware of the loons of al-Muhajiroun waving placards saying ‘Islam is the future of Britain’. But these are all on the extremist fringe, representative of no one but themselves. Surely no one in Islam takes this sort of thing seriously? I started surfing the Islamic media.

Take Dr Al-Qaradawi, the controversial Egyptian imam who was recently fawned over by the Mayor of London even though he promotes the execution of homosexuals, the right of men to indulge in domestic violence, and the murder of innocent Jews. During the brouhaha it went unnoticed that he also wants to conquer Europe. Don’t take my word for it, just listen to him on his popular al-Jazeera TV show, Sharia and Life.

‘Islam will return to Europe. The conquest need not necessarily be by the sword. Perhaps we will conquer these lands without armies. We want an army of preachers and teachers who will present Islam in all languages and in all dialects,’ he broadcast in 1999, according to the Middle East Media Research Institute, which translates his programmes. On another programme he declared, ‘Europe will see that it suffers from a materialist culture, and it will seek a way out, it will seek a lifeboat. It will seek no life-saver but the message of Islam.’

Far from being on the fringe, his immensely popular programmes are watched by millions across the Middle East and Europe. The BBC cooed that he has ‘star’ status among the world’s Muslims.

Dr Al-Qaradawi, who is based in Qatar, is also the spiritual guide of the hardline Muslim Brotherhood, which is growing across Europe, and whose leader Muhammad Mahdi Othman ’Akef declared recently, ‘I have complete faith that Islam will invade Europe and America, because Islam has logic and a mission.’

In the most sacred mosque in Islam, Sheikh Abd al-Rahman al-Sudais of the Grand Mosque in Mecca uses his sermons to call for Jews to be ‘annihilated’ and to urge the overthrow of Western civilisation. ‘The most noble civilisation ever known to mankind is our Islamic civilisation. Today, Western civilisation is nothing more than the product of its encounter with our Islamic civilisation in Andalusia [mediaeval Spain]. The reason for [Western civilisation’s] bankruptcy is its reliance on the materialistic approach, and its detachment from religion and values. [This approach] has been one reason for the misery of the human race, for the proliferation of suicide, mental problems and for moral perversion. Only one nation is capable of resuscitating global civilisation, and that is the nation [of Islam].’

Al-Sudais is the highest imam appointed by our Saudi government ally, and his sermons are widely listened to across the Middle East. When he came to the UK in June to open the London Islamic Centre, thousands of British Muslims flocked to see him, our so-called race relations minister Fiona Mactaggart shared the platform, and Prince Charles sent a video message. He is probably the closest thing in Islam to the Pope, but I haven’t recently heard the Pope call for the overthrow of all other faiths.

Saudi Arabia, whose flag shows a sword, seems unabashed about its desire for Islam to take over the world. Its embassy in Washington recommends the home page of its Islamic affairs department, where it declares, ‘The Muslims are required to raise the banner of jihad in order to make the Word of Allah supreme in this world.’ Saudi Arabia has used billions of its petrodollars to export its particularly harsh form of Islam, Wahabism, paying for mosques and Islamic schools across the West. About 80 per cent of the US’s mosques are thought to be under Wahabi control.

Saudi Arabia’s education ministry encourages schoolchildren to despise Christianity and Judaism. A new schoolbook in the kingdom’s curriculum tells six-year-olds: ‘All religions other than Islam are false.’ A note for teachers says they should ‘ensure to explain’ this point. In Egypt, the schoolbook Studies in Theology: Traditions and Morals explains that a particularly ‘noble’ bit of the Koran is ‘encouraging the faithful to perform jihad in God’s cause, to behead the infidels, take them prisoner, break their power — all that in a style which contains the highest examples of urging to fight’.

A popular topic for discussion on Arabic TV channels is the best strategy for conquering the West. It seems to be agreed that since the West has overwhelming economic, military and scientific power, it could take some time, and a full frontal assault could prove counterproductive. Muslim immigration and conversion are seen as the best path.

Saudi Professor Nasser bin Suleiman al-Omar declared on al-Majd TV last month, ‘Islam is advancing according to a steady plan, to the point that tens of thousands of Muslims have joined the American army and Islam is the second largest religion in America. America will be destroyed. But we must be patient.’

Islam is now the second religion not just in the US but in Europe and Australia. Europe has 15 million Muslims, accounting for one in ten of the population in France, where the government now estimates 50,000 Christians are converting to Islam every year. In Brussels, Mohammed has been the most popular name for boy babies for the last four years. In Britain, attendance at mosques is now higher than it is in the Church of England.

Al-Qa’eda is criticised for being impatient, and waking the West up. Saudi preacher Sheikh Said al-Qahtani said on the Iqraa TV satellite channel, ‘We did not occupy the US, with eight million Muslims, using bombings. Had we been patient and let time take its course, instead of the eight million there could have been 80 million [Muslims], and 50 years later perhaps the US would have become Muslim.’

It is difficult to brush this off as an aberration of Islam, which is normally just tickety-boo letting the rest of the world indulge in its false beliefs. Dr Zaki Badawi, the moderate former director of the Islamic Cultural Centre in London, admitted, ‘Islam endeavours to expand in Britain. Islam is a universal religion. It aims to bring its message to all corners of the earth. It hopes that one day the whole of humanity will be one Muslim community.’

In Muslim tradition, the world is divided into Dar al-Islam, where Muslims rule, and Dar al-Harb, the ‘field of war’ where the infidels live. ‘The presumption is that the duty of jihad will continue, interrupted only by truces, until all the world either adopts the Muslim faith or submits to Muslim rule,’ wrote Professor Bernard Lewis in his bestseller The Crisis of Islam.’

The first jihad was in ad 630, when Mohammed led his army to conquer Mecca. He made a prediction that Islam would conquer the two most powerful Christian centres at the time, Constantinople and Rome. Within 100 years of his death, Muslim armies had conquered the previously Christian provinces of Syria, Palestine, Egypt and the rest of North Africa, as well as Spain, Portugal and southern Italy, until they were stopped at Poitiers in central France in ad 732. Muslim armies overthrew the ancient Zoroastrian empire of Persia, and conquered much of central Asia and Hindu India.

Ibn Warraq, a Pakistani who lost his Islamic faith, wrote in his book Why I am not a Muslim, ‘Although Europeans are constantly castigated for having imposed their insidious decadent values, culture and language on the Third World, no one cares to point out that Islam colonised lands that were the homes of advanced and ancient civilisations.’

It took 700 years for the Spanish to get their country back in the prolonged ‘Reconquista’. In the meantime the Turks, a central Asian people, had been converted to Islam and had conquered the ancient Christian land of Anatolia (now called Turkey). In 1453 they captured Constantinople — fulfilling Mohammed’s first prediction — which was the centre of the Eastern Orthodox Church. The glorious Hagia Sophia, which had been one of the most important churches in Christendom for nearly 1,000 years after it was built in ad 537, was turned into a mosque, and minarets were added. The Turks went on to occupy Greece and much of the Balkans for four centuries, turning the Parthenon into a mosque and besieging Vienna, before retreating as their power waned.

In the Middle East, there are regular calls for Mohammed’s second prediction to come true. Sheikh Muhammad bin Abd al-Rahman al-’Arifi, imam of the mosque of the Saudi government’s King Fahd Defence Academy, wrote recently, ‘We will control the land of the Vatican; we will control Rome and introduce Islam in it.’

Not all conversion has been by the sword. Muslim traders peaceably converted Indonesia, now the most populous Islamic nation. But nor have the conquests stopped. Islam has continued spreading in sub-Saharan Africa, most notably in Nigeria and Sudan. Abyssinia — Ethiopia — is an ancient Christian land where Muslims have come to outnumber Christians only in the last 100 years. Just 50 years ago, Lebanon was still predominantly Christian; it is now predominantly Muslim.

Of course, Christianity has been just as much a conquering religion. Spanish armies ruthlessly destroyed ancient civilisations in Central and South America to spread the message of love. Christians colonised the Americas and Australia, committing genocide as they went, while missionaries such as Livingstone converted most of Africa.

But the difference is that Christendom has — by and large — stopped conquering and converting, and indeed in Europe simply stopped believing. Even President Bush’s most trenchant critics don’t believe he conquered Afghanistan and Iraq to spread the word of Jesus. It is ironic that by deposing Saddam, who ran the most secular of Arab regimes, the US actually transferred power to the imams.

I believe in a free market in religions, and it is inevitable that if you believe your religion is true, then you believe others are false. But this market is seriously rigged. In Saudi Arabia the government bans all churches, while in Europe governments pay to build Islamic cultural centres. While in many Islamic countries preaching Christianity is banned, in Western Christian countries the right to preach Islam is enshrined in law. Christians are free to convert to Islam, while Muslims who convert to Christianity can expect either death threats or a death sentence. The Pope keeps apologising for the Crusades (even though they were just attempts to get back former Christian lands) while his opposite numbers call for the overthrow of Christendom.

In Christian countries, those who warn about Islamification, such as the film star Brigitte Bardot, are prosecuted, while in Muslim countries those who call for the Islamification of the world are turned into TV celebrities. In the West, schools teach comparative religion, while in Muslim countries schools teach that Islam is the only true faith. David Blunkett in effect wants to ban criticism of Islam, a protection not enjoyed by Christianity in Muslim countries. Millions of Muslims move to Christian countries, but virtually no Christians move to Muslim ones.

In the last century some Christians justified the persecution and mass murder of Jews by claiming that Jews wanted to take over the world. But these fascist fantasies were based on deliberate lies, such as the notorious fake book The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Now, many in the Muslim world are open about their desire for Islam to conquer the West. "

4:16 PM, November 25, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

Robert Spencer
"Robert Spencer is a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law and the director of Jihad Watch. He is the author of five books, seven monographs, and hundreds of articles about jihad and Islamic terrorism, including Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World’s Fastest Growing Faithand The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades). He is also an Adjunct Fellow with the Free Congress Foundation.

"a provision of classic Islamic law (the Sharia) that the Caliph has not just a right, but a responsibility to wage war."

"Umdat al-Salik (published in English as Reliance of the Traveller) stipulates that “the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians . . . until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.” The “non-Muslim poll tax” is the most conspicuous feature of a system, carefully delineated in this manual, of organized oppression and second-class (dhimmi) status for religious minorities in lands ruled by the Sharia. Umdat al-Salik carries an endorsement from Al-Azhar University in Cairo, the most respected and influential voice in all of Sunni Islam.

A manual from a different school of Sunni jurisprudence states that the caliph must “make jihad against those who resist Islam after having been called to it until they submit or accept to live as a protected dhimmi-community — so that Allah’s rights, may He be exalted ‘be made uppermost above all [other] religion’ (Qur’an 9:33).” Without a caliph, those who resist Islam have less to fear; Islamic radicals around the world have therefore long viewed the abolition of the caliphate as an immense tragedy, and its reestablishment as a prerequisite of a worldwide resurgence of Islam."

7:44 PM, November 25, 2005  
Blogger Cranky Yankee said...

I guess I'll have to find some extremists to quote too and have them represent my point for me.

It sounds to me like you are making excuses for the bad perception of the west rather than face the facts.

I guess I could counter by saying xtianity wants/wanted to conquer the world and has tried oin several occasions, but I don't really need that to support my point. It's just an observation.

Back to my original point, if the U.S. would weild its power for the good of all people as opposed to corporate greed and self interest the poor of the world would see us differently. These types of bloody terrorist atrocitities would be revilied by those they are supposed to be helping.

I predict the next "terrorist" hotbed is South America. The people there are starting to wake up to what American involvement has meant to them. I spent a lot of time in Central America in the 80's and I can tell you the people there hate us for good reason. The governments we created and supported committed some of the worst atrocities of modern times against the poor of their own countries in order to control them and stay in power. This all happened under the watchful eye of the U.S. government. But I digress...

8:18 AM, November 26, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

"I guess I'll have to find some extremists to quote too and have them represent my point for me."

cranky, you accuse me of missing your points. but, have you been missing mine? we're not fighting muslim moderates. we are fighting extremists. that's what i've been saying all along, and that is obviously who i'm going to quote. besides you you asked of me:

"Also, I would like to see you quote some documented evidence that show that Al Qaeda or the "terrorists" we are fighting, want to take over the world ."

i do exactly that and you dismiss the quotes as being from extremists! well, yeah!

so what are you asking for cranky? feels like we're chasing tails again.

you ask for me to quote terrorists (or any of their kind) in their desire to take over the world. now, to tell the truth, i found far more than what i've posted here. but i went beyond, i think, and took from a left-leaning source (the guardian)! so gimme a break now cranky and come down from your pulpit. this was interesting enough right up until you started moving the goal posts: i repeat, i found what you wanted, that's not good enough because it's not part of the game cranky wants to play, so this can go on and on...

12:45 PM, November 26, 2005  
Blogger Cranky Yankee said...

You did not find what I wanted. You went groping for your security blanket. You didn't quote anyone from al qaeda or even related to any of the people that attacked us.

The guardian article does not quote anyone related to al qaeda or osama bin laden. It seacrhes out people who make the claim.. So?

It's easy to find someone that agrees with you, but you need to find proof of your point.

The people we are fighting do not want to take over the world. Are there Muslim who misinterpret the Holy Quran as directing them to conquer the world? Sure, but al qaeda has no designs on conquering the world. I defy you to quote one line from bin laden or anyone affiliated with the people we are fighting that says they want to take over the world.

You just don't like losing arguments so you keep changing the subject.

12:55 PM, November 26, 2005  
Blogger Cranky Yankee said...

Juan Cole has a great article about various insurgent groups in Iraq that are fighting the U.S. occupation that also oppose Al Qaeda.

Iraqi guerrilla groups such as "The Islamic Army," "The Bloc of Holy Warriors," and "The Revolution of 1920 Brigades" conveyed their conditions behind the scenes. (Despite the Islamist names of these groups, they are probably mostly neo-Baathist.) Among their demands are 1) working to end the foreign occupation, 2) compensation to the Iraqis for the damages arising from the American invasion; 3) the release of prisoners; and 4) building political and military institutions that are not subservient to American and regional influence.

These guerrilla groups said they would never turn al-Zarqawi over to the Americans even if Washington promised to leave Iraq completely. They might, however, turn him over to a legitimate Iraqi government if the Americans were no longer there.

The Iraqi guerrilla groups maintain that al-Zarqawi's group is fabulously wealthy, and that he uses his wealth to entice other guerrilla groups to share their intelligence with him. He then bankrolls their operations against US troops.

This must sound odd to those who think Al Qaeda, via Al-Zarqawi, is running the insurgency in Iraq. It's obvious that Al Qaeda is not our main opposition in Iraq and the bulk of the insurgents don't support Al qaeda although the remain a substantial element. If this is true then why are "the terrrorists" fighting against the occupation. This is just more proof that the "fly-paper" philosophy of the war in Iraq is idiotic.

1:25 PM, November 26, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

"Osama bin Laden, who in 1998 issued the following edict: "We—with God’s help—call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God’s order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan’s U.S. troops and the devil’s supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson. The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies—civilians and military—is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it."'

-quote taken from Unholy Alliance: The "Peace Left" and the Islamic Jihad Against America

"wherever" and "whenever they find them." mmmm, old usama probably means just in the middle east, right?

"Hostility toward America is a religious duty, and we hope to be rewarded for it by God."
-usama bin laden,

where in the Qu'ran does it say this? talk about a poison.

look and study the following wars all involving muslims and the rest of the god damn world:

In his ground-breaking book The Clash of Civilizations, Samuel Huntington lists scores of conflicts caused by Moslems:

"Bosnia, Kosovo, Turks vs. Greeks, Turks vs. Armenians, Chechens vs. Russia, Ingush vs. Ossetians, Bangladeshi Moslems vs. Buddhists, Myanmar Moslems vs. Buddhists, Indonesian and Malaysian Moslems vs. ethnic Chinese, Thai Moslems vs. their Buddhist government, Moslem East Timor government represses Catholic Indonesians, Chad and Kenya, and Tanzanian Moslems attack Christian groups in Nigeria."

wait... there's more:

In addition, many current conflicts have been initiated and maintained by Moslem forces:

"Afghanistani Taliban and al-Qaeda, Mauritanian slavery, Sudanese slavery, Sudan's 19-year civil war, Ivory Coast's recent revolt, Nigeria's 10-year war, Algeria's 10-year war, Ethiopia vs. Eritrea, Iraqis vs. Kurds, 8 years of the Iran-Iraq War, then Kuwait, Lebanon’s 27-year occupation by Syria, Lebanon’s 12-year occupation by the PLO, The PLO's war against Jordan (1967-70), Pakistan vs. India in Kashmir, Indonesia (with Bali the latest manifestation), Arabs vs. Jews in Israel, jihad in Philippines, Islamists in Daghestan, Uighur in China, Islamic extremists in Uzbekistan, Ditto in Pakistan, Thailand's Moslem insurrection, Chechnya and Arab/Moslem involvement in Beslan, Syrian training grounds for terrorists of all creeds, colors, Iraq "insurgency" (Syrian, Iranian and Saudi terrorists), and al-Qaeda in Somalia."

but i forgot, your recent mantra seems to be u.s. bad, muslims peaceful, just wanna be left alone. it's america, right cranky, that probably plotted all of the above wars. i mean, somehow, big, bad america must have some role. they must!

and, cranky, we all know that actions speak louder than words:

the Taliban destroyed two giant buddahs, centuries old, carved into cliffs, in 2001. Why?

"the Taleban, which announced last month it would destroy images deemed "offensive to Islam."'- cnn

wouldn't that be considered impeding religious freedom because it was "offensive to Islam"?

you seem to think that the u.s. has been such a menace in the middle east, in fact it seems to be your arguement to justify the terrorists yet you fail to recognize the history of muslim violence... on itself:

"Saddam killed far more Moslems than any other leader in the world at any time in history (1,200,000 during his 32 year reign = 3,125 per month, on average)."

"Mauritania and Sudan legally enslave Moslems, but no one in the Arab and Muslim world seems to care (except the enslaved)."

"Syria's occupation of Lebanon (1975-2005) has wrecked the country, destroyed the economy, killed literally tens of thousands, rendered close to a million homeless, but both Hafez and young Bashir are doyens of Arab leadership."

"The Algerian government has maintained a 10-year war against Islamist Moslem Brotherhood groups that seek to replace the secular Algerian government with Shari'a law and Islamofascist rule. This war has resulted in the deaths of 200,000 and left a million homeless (due to government retaliation when there is an attack on government forces: level the entire village from which the attack came, kill thousands and render the survivors homeless). Yet no one in the Arab world cries out at the terrible slaughter of Moslem Arabs by the Algerian army."

this goes on and on, i've gotta stop, my finger's killing me! but usama, the great warrior, where was he to help his fellow muslims?

-quotes taken from david meir-levi, front page magazine.


"Hostility toward America is a religious duty, and we hope to be rewarded for it by God . . . . I am confident that Muslims will be able to end the legend of the so-called superpower that is America." Time Magazine

"We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal whether directly or through its support of the Israeli occupation." - Osama bin Laden - to CNN in March 1997
- you'll take this last quote and say- see the americans are accupyers. it's our fault that usama attacked us. but, really, as a history nut, you know the jews have every right to be in israel and if you do deny it, you deny 3,200 years of history. also, the muslims have acted greivously against their own people, i ask again, apart from the war against the ruskies, where the hell has he been? he must be targetting america for more than what you say. i mean, he has barely lifted a finger in other conflicts where MUSLIMS ARE KILLING MUSLIMS...

"Our work targets world infidels. Our enemy is the crusader alliance led by America, Britain and Israel. It is a crusader-Jewish alliance."

— Osama bin Laden
from a TIME interview, 1998

seeems the old boy really has more a problem with the relationship the u.s. has with the jewish people rather than any occupation. a rather twisted fascination, i'd say. or perhaps he's just looking for an excuse to go to war with us...?

"It is the duty of every Muslim to fight. Killing Jews is top priority."

-- Osama bin Laden
in video made public ~Nov. 11 2001

uh... okay...

at least he's honest, though:

"history should be a witness that we are terrorists. Yes, we kill their innocents".
-the telegraph

but, cranky, Islam forbids the killing of innocent civilians even in a holy war. oops. yeah, this is really about occupation...

"The towers were supposed to be filled with supporters of the economical powers of the United States who are abusing the world."

-the telegraph. i thought this was against the u.s. was about muslim land. why's he talking about the world?

"We will not stop killing them and whoever supports them."

-telegraph. so when will it stop, cranky? according to you, we just gotta stay outta the middle east (let's not even talk about taking a studied vacation in russia, or turkey. we may seem as if wee're tresspassing again, i guess.)

"Killing Jews is top priority."
- the telegraph

man, how can you even whisper a rationalization for this guy and his followers?

you try and justify terrorist activities as being about occupation throughout history. who we helped, who we didn't help.

(and remember, the u.s. helped bin laden and his crew in afghanistan)

yet this page is evidence that bin laden doesn't care who occupied what. i mean, really, look at the wars, muslims slaughtering muslims. but he has his aim, not on the tyrants throughout the recent decades, but on the great satan. sorry, cranky, doesn't wash... 9/11 was abhorent. suicide bombing is abhorent. no rationalization will...

i find, honestly, a lazy relativism in your statements. i mean, i'm aghast at trying to justify muslim terrorism from the acts against us during the '90's to destroying a centuries old buddhist sculptures, to the desire of annihilating the jewish people, i dunno, but that kinda feels like a sect that wants to incite it's terror onto everyone that doesn't share in the same beliefs, whether it's the buddhists, the jews, the yanks, the english, the russians, the french, the moderate muslims in turkey...

... what people have these terrorists not touched?

but i'm sorry, it must be america's fault, right?

3:30 PM, November 26, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

"Our work targets world infidels. Our enemy is the crusader alliance led by America, Britain and Israel. It is a crusader-Jewish alliance."

just wanted to repeat this one. who are "world infidels," cranky? everone who's not a muslim.

please, prove me wrong. because, my friend, this is the death blow to anything you have to say.

now, you find me some quotes: find out, through documented quotes, who is excluded from the "world infidels." you do this, cranky, i may just be able to give your justifications a little more seriousness...

3:58 PM, November 26, 2005  
Blogger Cranky Yankee said...

Typical, In the first quote you left off the part that makes my case. The edict continues thus,
"The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim."

And as usuall you use long quotes but still miss the point. Nowhere in your post does it say anything about al qaeda taking over and/or ruling the world. Your use of volume is much like most right wing arguments. Yell when you can't argue the facts.

You are still missing the point of my argument. Go back and read where I said, over and over again, that al qaeda should be taken out... My point is that as long as westerners are interfering with the lives of the poor arabs and the poor everywhere in the world they will be ripe for accepting terrorism as an avenue.

My original point still stands. The people we are fighting in the over-all "war on terror", Al qaeda and those supported by them, are not bent on making a islamic ruled world. Their aim is to expell us and anyone else that interferes in the arab world. The insurgents in Iraq just want us out.

What is so hard to grasp about that?
I'm not surprised you are aghast. They don't tell you this stuff on Fox News.

5:01 PM, November 26, 2005  
Blogger Cranky Yankee said...

The infidels are anyone who is interfering with the arab world. How hard is that to grasp?

Here it is. Osama Bin Laden February 22nd, 1998. This is the fatwa, an order, a summary of their intent.

You can ask me to exclude from a genrealization all you want. The question of who isn't an infidel is a stupid one. I'm not arguing who is an infidel. See if you can grasp this... As it says below. Al qaeda is fighting the west to expel us from their holy land and to render us incapable or unwilling to intefere with them. Period. None of this justifies what they do it just is their stated cause. You can't argue that with fact. You can suppose and hypothesize all you want but read below and learn the truth.

"For over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples."
"Despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once again trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation."

"We--with God's help--call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson."

"The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim."

There is your deathblow...

5:10 PM, November 26, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

"My point is that as long as westerners are interfering with the lives of the poor arabs and the poor everywhere in the world they will be ripe for accepting terrorism as an avenue."

this is a cheap marxist argument. and what i say to you: review again, the war and tyranny that muslims shed on each other cranky. your words are so thin it's frightening how easily you are sucked into a doctrine that is not backed up by history- something you were so freely throwing around until it goes against your beliefs... and take into account: how rich are usama and the boys. yes, yes, i understand, don't think about the economics of that argument. just keep telling yourself these are poor and helpless people striking out...

muslims slaughter muslims, lets target the great satan. please cranky, come up with something original!

and i will repeat- i don't watch fox, that is the God's honest truth. so stop trying to pigeon hole, find me documented quotes on who has been excluded from Usama's statement of the "infidels of the world" or admit they want to spread their poison or destroy those who do not "submit." let's move on, please...

my quotes, from the great warrior himself dictate a fascism that has not been seen since hitler. barely anything seperates the two...

review what i've written in the past few quotes, or i'm afraid, cranky, i can't take seriously anything you say on this topic. i would especially be interested in seeing the documented quotes of those who have been excluded from the "world infidel" labels...

... c'mon cranky, what are you so afraid of? can't find any? that's because those who do not agree with the terrorists are the infidels.

please crankster, this is painful in that you've been backed into a corner of your own doing.

and i must remind you, stop pigeon holing. it only impedes you...

and i'm sorry, cranky, you ask for quote after quote. i ask for some, you back away and run. shit, should i be surprised?

5:24 PM, November 26, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

i just saw your last post: cranky, dude, you're excusing a mass murdering terrorist! i don't sway from anything i said including:

there's not much to differ between adolph and usmama, yet you claim to be their great justification.

I've quoted and written to abolish everything you have said. usama has a perverted hatred against the jews and the "world infidels." that is plain...

you think my questions are "stupid" yet that's because it is also plain that that the only people excluded from the "world infidel" label are the terrorists themselves! sorry man, nothing in anything you say remotely tries to say anything different...

Jeez, man, what aren't you grasping? you're so embedded in some sick pathology that nothing makes sense to you, even as i have painfully spelled it out for you...

this is truly sick, man!

5:32 PM, November 26, 2005  
Blogger Cranky Yankee said...

You still haven't made the case that al qaeda wants anything more than to expel western infidels from their holy land. History is killing your argument. Infidels include anyone they perceive as interfering in the internal affairs of arabs. What does Marxism have to do with it?

Sheesh. yell all you want, it doesn't make your argument any better. What part of the Osama quote do you not understand? That is the famous fatwa that you quoted earlier. I just included all of it rather than cherry pick like you do.

If I'm so wrong how do you explain the sentiment of the arab street? Explain the hatred of the west by those whom you don't include in the realm of terrorists. Or are you saying that all Muslim are evil bent on destruction of the west and all non-Muslims? All I'm getting from you is hateful ranting generalizing all Muslims by the words and deeds of the few.

5:44 PM, November 26, 2005  
Blogger Cranky Yankee said...

Let me ask you, if the U.S. had no military forces in the middle east and there was peace between the Israelis and Palestinians with an open internationalized Jerulsalem, how would al qaeda justifiy attacks on the U.S. to the arab street.

You do realize everything you have said can be said of the U.S. and its drive to spread "democracy."

6:05 PM, November 26, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

"If I'm so wrong how do you explain the sentiment of the arab street?"

i'm not saying there's not anti-american sentiment cranky. what i am saying is that it may be misdirected considering that muslims have done far worse to their own people, yet they go after the u.s.

don't project, cranky, i'm not yelling...

i am telling you to review the history of war right up until modern age that muslims have waged against each other and the rest of the world...

... i'm not going to waste my time giving an economics lecture, but if you can't see the simple marxist philosophy in your excuses for these terrorists, then you're more lost than i thought (hint: the poor, the oppressed... carry on your argument from there).

"Or are you saying that all Muslim are evil bent on destruction of the west and all non-Muslims?"

read everything i have said crankster: i have stated this is not moderate muslim (i.e. what turkey is and what iraq can be), so please, don't put words in my mouth to support your weak points of view...

if you say that i'm generalizing then you have not read what i have written. i specifically lay fault at extremists. cranky, you're getting flustered, putting words in my mouth. i have made it more than clear who i am talking about, but since you're knees are shaking, you resort to petty revisions of what I did not say...

cranky, i'm getting tired of your excuses for terrorism in the middle east... take your last post. now look at the wars muslims (fanatics, in case it has to be explained to you) have waged against each other and the rest of the world i have listed, and you will see your remarks are null, void and moot.

this is bordering on sickness now...

but please cranky, come back at me if you must, just don't plant words i did not say (in fact the opposite) and don't project your frustrations on to me (i.e. the entire ranting and yelling argument). be careful cranky, this is going to a place where i'm revealing that you seem to sympathize more with the terrorists than your own country. read the history you so preach from: read about muslim terrror on it's own people and the rest of the world. i think the above list has given you many resources.

6:29 PM, November 26, 2005  
Blogger Cranky Yankee said...

Of course now I'm a terrorist sympathizer. Nice. I should have known you would go there.

Stay on topic. Tell me, specifically, why Al Qaeda attacked us? You don't know. Tell me exactly how removing military forces from Iraq would invite terrorists to our streets? If I'm not mistaken that is the point you made that led me to make my point that al qaeda has not claimed desire to rule the world.

Insult me all you want, but you can't question my dedication to my country. I have served this country for most of my adult life and on battlefields all over the world. I have bled for America and bear the scars of my dedication to this day. Your cheap insults will not distract me and only convince me that I am on the right side of these issues.

7:07 PM, November 26, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

"You do realize everything you have said can be said of the U.S. and its drive to spread "democracy."'

one question: what's your problem with the u.s. anyways?

i give you a list of like a hundred wars that the muslims have started in modern history and you keep up with how bad the u.s. is.

i talk about modern day slavery, yet you go on and on about u.s. occupation...

lazy relativism, as i said before...

cranky, the u.s. is far from perfect, why do you keep putting it up on a pedestal? every inch is judged by you, yet look at muslim history as you have pointed out to me over and over again, and you turn a blind eye to the terrors they are responsible for.

i have, cranky, looked at these points of history, and it gives me more reason to question what you're trying to say.

this "argument," cranky (and as far as i'm concerned, it's turning into a farce) has to come to an end. i can't imagine anyone who argues so profoundly for the extremist cause (and hides behind the fact that he's questioning his country), a cause that can so easily be compared to hitler and his movement.

yet you say it can be more easily compared with the u.s. (you see where I'm coming from crank? you don't compare the menace of arab terrorism to anything but the states. not hitler. not the communist purges. just america the bad):

"You do realize everything you have said can be said of the U.S. and its drive to spread "democracy."'

you do realize, cranky, what you're saying? i use nazi germany as an example (comparisons are valid and easily backed up as i have done ad nauseum) and you use america as an example by making references to the ottoman empire... or some such occupation...

once again, i'll ask you: who is exempt of the label "world infidels" (with documented quotes, of course). if that is such a stupid question then it should be easy to answer. but i think you'll find that usama has judged everyone and failed to dismiss anyone (other than his own ilk) of the charges.

if you can't do this, i'm putting this argument to bed, because i can't go on debating with a man looking for any excuse to pigeon hole his country into the same hole as islamic extremists when history (i.e. the wars muslilms have set upon themselves; the wars muslims have set upon the rest of the world) suggests, best case scenerio he is using lazy relativism to support his arguments. you run from the observations of history, of the wars instigated, of the religious intolerance... you wanna compare islamic terrorist to mcvie, be my guest. he was just one psycho yankee compared to how many fanatics in the middle east who believe it is their moral authority, stated from the qu'ran, to hurt the "world infidels."

7:13 PM, November 26, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

this not about being on the right side, cranky. you're looking for any excuse to put the u.s. on a pedestal just so you can knock her down again...

you have failed to answer all of my questions, when it's apparent why i think we were attacked, not just on 9/11...

you say i have not answered why i think cutting and running will invite these s.o.b.'s onto our streets, and i have: they are fanatics, we are one of the world's infidels and the great satan... and, as i've said, if they can "drive" us outta iraq they've just hit a glass ceiling that they will be creaming all over themselves to shatter.

so, once again, stop projecting your frustrations, stop putting words in my mouth. i have been more than clear, you have been more and more vague and accusatory as this has gone on. so, if you don't have anything new to offer, this is over...

7:20 PM, November 26, 2005  
Blogger Cranky Yankee said...

You still haven't directly answered the question. When did AL QAEDA say they wanted to rule the world? You answer with "they are fanatics." While true it is not an answer, but a right wing cop-out.

Picture a Venn diagram, if you know what that is. You know, the overlapping circles?

In circle "A" put Islamic fanatics. In circle "B" put terrorists, in circle "C" put Al Qaeda, in "D" put those whom we are fighting. 4 circles.

Logically you can put Al Qaeda "C" entirely in the circle of whom we are fighting "D". So all of "C" is contained in "D".

The circle containing those we are fighting "D" can also be included entirely in the terrorists circle "B".

And the terrorists circle "B" can be placed entirely in the fanatics circle "A".

All of "C" is in "D", all of "D" is contained in "B" and all of "B" is contained in "A". Are you with me?

Replace the letters as follows; All of "Al Qaeda" is in "those whom we are fighting." All of "those whom we are fighting" are "terrorists" and all "Terrorists" are "fanatics."

Now if you have drawn this out as overlapping circles you would plainly observe that there is space within the circle of "those whom we are fighting" that is not contained in the "Al Qaeda" circle. This is best illustrated by the Iraqi insurgency. While they are fighting against us most of them are not Al Qaeda. You should also see that not all terrorist are among those we are fighting and that all fanatics are not terrorists.

Follow me so far? What you are missing is that we are not fighting all terrorists or fanatics. There are many fanatics we are not fighting. Look no further than Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and UAE. So while all of those we are fighting are fanatics, all fanatics on not contained in the group we are fighting. Also all fanatics are not terrorists. And the terrorists circle is not fully contained within the circle of whom we are fighting. See, there are many terrorist we are not fighting and in fact are our allies. Just look at Pakistan, Bosnia, Kosovo and other terrorist organizations in the former Soviet Union. What I'm trying to illustrate is that your use of sweeping generalization to categorize ever fanatic a terrorist and one against whom we are fighting fails logically.

I know this is frustrating for you to grasp and because of cognitive dissonance, from the clash of years of classical conditioning and reality, as I have mention in other threads, is confusing you.

Yes Peter, you have answered a lot of questions. Unfortunately they aren't the ones I asked. They are your own questions you are asking yourself in an effort to avoid the truth. Nice try, what the Germans did, or any Muslims did in the past has nothing to do with my question. There may be historical relevance, if you had made a point other then "they are crazy."

Nice try but I won't be deterred. Unlike you, I know we are not fighting against Islam and all Muslims. I believe that the vast majority of them are good peace loving people that just want to be left alone.

Once again, you can take you ball and quit if you want, but there is no denying as I have proven by quoting the source, Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are fighting us if an effort to expel us from their holy land and destroy are capability and will to interfere in the affairs of the greater Arab Nation. If toward their end they completely destroyed the west that would be a by-product of the means, not the ends.

Are there Muslims who misinterpret their holy books as directing them to take over the world through hostility? Yes, but not all off them are fighting us or are al Qaeda. See the Venn diagram paragraphs above.

Anyway, you can keep going off on your unrelated tangents and reviling me because I don't equate Al Qaeda with Nazi Germany. Quite frankly they are diametrically opposed. I guess in your mind all is ruled by "with us or against us.' Hmm. Like I have said over and over again. Al Qaeda has got to go. Our initial response to the 911 attack was great and we should have seen the job through. I can even make the case that it should have been done in 1998, but the right wing was too busy impeaching Clinton and decrying him for wagging the dog when he did what little he did. He should have put an end to Al Qaeda right then and there. But just because he screwed up does not absolve this current idiotic cabal from their culpability in the latest fiasco. Like I said, anyway.

Yes I put America on a pedestal. Should it not be there? I love my country so much I am not afraid to say when it has gone astray. It's a hard thing to do. Imagine telling your alcoholic father, who you love dearly, that he is killing your family slowly. Anything less is dangerous and avoids the truth. The truth hits everybody. Your type of love is called codependence or enabling. If you really loved this country you would see that we have really messed things and need to make serious correction or the price may become too much to bear.

True patriots are calling on the country to correct its wrongs.

6:29 AM, November 27, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

you haven't read everything i said. you keep misquoting me, implying repeatedly that i'm lumping all muslims into a terrorist category when i have clearly stated the exact opposite.

cranky, you keep making judgements that have no foundation. i've shown enough in the past few days, including using your own words to prove that much of what you say is confused and misguided.

cranky, who have been excluded from usama's charges of "world infidels"?

let's stop playing semantics, cranky. it's pretty obvious what designs usama has...

and i'll give you this: there are many terrorist organizations in the world, and yes, we are fighting more than one group in iraq. and yes, some of those are "fighters" who have no more aspirations to destroy ememies outside of their borders. but i don't see how that changes the designs of usama's boys and their intentions, which, his own words have proven him guilty...

so crankster, i ask for the final time, if usamamama and his boys don't want to spread their vile and diseased beliefs around the world, who are the excluded "world infidels" that won't be punished?

you can't answer it cranky, instead you play semantics. read his quotes, as i said, it's apparent what he wants, or maybe not. i guess i thought you were a lot smarter than that cranky and would be able to easily desipher the non-subtle approach usamamama has taken about punishing those who do not see things through the eyes of his islam...

8:28 AM, November 27, 2005  
Blogger Cranky Yankee said...

Who is usamamama? Isn't that what your boy Rush calls him? You seem to be frothing a bit.

OK, since you have conceded my point, I'll answer your question with this quote from Osama Bin Laden after the bombings in Spain. These are his words, incontrovertible evidence that you are wrong.

Bin Laden audio tape

I offer a truce to them (Europe) with a commitment to stop operations against any state which vows to stop attacking Muslims or interfere in their affairs, including (participating) in the American conspiracy against the wider Muslim world.

This first truce can be renewed upon expiry and the establishment of a new government agreed upon by both parties. And the announcement of the truce starts with the withdrawal of the last soldier from our land and the door is open for three months from the date of the announcement of this statement.

Whoever rejects this truce and wants war, we are its (war’s) sons and whoever wants this truce, here we bring it.

Stop shedding our blood to save your own and the solution to this simple but complex equation is in your hands. You know matters will escalate the more you delay and then do not blame us but blame yourselves. Rational people do not risk their security, money and sons to appease the White House liar.

The killing of Russians came after their invasion of Afghanistan and Chechnya, and the killing of Europeans came after their invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. The killing of Americans on the day of New York came after their support of the Jews in Palestine and their invasion of the Arabian peninsula and their killing in Somalia came after they invaded it in an operation to ’restore hope’, so we returned them without hope, thank God.

I guess that takes care of that.

Answer this if you dare. Why hasn't Al Qaeda attacked Canada, China, Venezuela, Ecuador? Aren't they infidels? Your not making sense any longer. I'm sorry if the positive proof, like that presented above, has you all worked up, but your frustration is causing you to make logic errors.

Stay focused. I have presented to you Osama's own words that refute the things you are making up yet you offer vague generalizations as your proof and get frustrated when I refute you. This is too easy. Maybe I should get drunk to level the playing field.

Game set and match.

10:26 AM, November 27, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

i'm already drunk...

considering that canada will be employing a further 1500 troops by feb to help in the war on terror, their time is around the corner. plus their csis officers have already busted a couple of terrorist cells last summer.

why hasn't he attacked china? i'd say he's scared shitless.

equador? why bother...

what silly questions... and dude, do i have to remind you again, i don't listen to the rushster, but obviously you need to hold onto to this to satisfy your own cliched stereotyping...

i'm not sure how this quote answers anything but usamamamba knows how easily europeans buckle and he had to look no further than the madrid bombings.

you didn't answer who has been excluded from the "world infidel" label.

you don't even go near where i've asked you to go: namely if the great satan has to be destroyed because of blah, blah blah (insert your rhetoric and anti-jewish rants here), where has usambo been when his own people have been doing more damage to their own people than you can ever hope the united states has done...

hypocrisy runs deep in the terrorist world as well...

you're very excitable, cranky and your projections are straight out of my psyche 101 courses. relax, take a breath and find me the documented quotes i have been asking for.

and for someone as ignorant as i certainly am, you've been taking an awful long time to prove a point that still needs to be proved.

but i certainly have a better idea of your inner thinking and it's pretty frightening: set american up on a pedestal so you can knock her down. why?

you ignore the muslim abuse of their own people, but can empathize with the terrorist when they claim they have waged war against us because of occupation. why?

you obviously see eye to eye when osama states his issues he has with our relationship with israel. what are your feelings on the existence of the jews in israel, cranky? i have a feeling of what they are...

i have quoted the usamblo all weekend, yet i'm being vague. you use one quote and that answers who has been excluded from his wrath. weak, cranky, very weak.

you're tired. have a nap. get back to me with something interesting. something that doesn't reek of your anger. try answering some of my questions now. seems the only way you can answer anything is by playing that classic game "semaaantix!"

have that drink now cranky...

11:21 AM, November 27, 2005  
Blogger Cranky Yankee said...

Let's see, I'll try to follow your ranting flow...

If you can't read or accept the proof positive that they aren't out to destroy all infidels than I feel bad for you. You apparently feel that the right wing interpretation of Islam trumps what Muslims actually say.

You're right your argument is at about the "psyche" (your spelling-now that's Freudian funny) 101 level.

Everyone may be considered an infidel, the obvious fact that they are not attacking everyone makes you look like a fool for arguing in such a circle. By your logic, terrorists are people and since we are at war with terrorists we are also at war with people, therefore all people are fair game. Weird...

You still haven't proven your case.

I say Al Qaeda's stated aim is to expel us from Muslim lands and renders us incapable or unwilling to interfere in their affairs. Address that point. The Bin Laden snippets you quote out of context when placed in their entirety state that, as I have repeated shown you. Going off on rants about infidels and Germans, making wild assumptions exposing your lack of knowledge of the situation, and repeating hate radio rhetoric, while cathartic, do not a case make.

When Mohammed led an army to capture Mecca it was tribal warfare more than anything else. What that has to do with Al Qaeda escapes me.

Israel has a right to exist as do the Palestinians. Surprise!

"I know you are but what am I" isn't much of an argument. America should be on a pedestal, why do you hate it so much? Your self-loathing is reflected in your disdain for the good qualities of our country. The actions of a few corrupt politicians and corporations should not represent us to the world. America is better than that. Sorry to disappoint you.

12:37 PM, November 27, 2005  
Blogger Cranky Yankee said...

Recap, since you obviously forgot, or are ignoring, what we were talking about

This whole concept of inviting terrorists onto our streets is ridiculous. As long as we are supporting corrupt regimes and oppressive monarchies we will be targets. If our corporate interests interfere with these societies then we invite the terrorists onto our streets. We need to stop acting like an empire for the glorification of our own greed. As soon as the American people realize that it is not they who the Arabs hate, but how they are represented as an influence peddling, corrupting, greed driven corporate machine then we can understand how to fight terrorism.

Everything we have seen has been a symptom of something greater. It's history.

What do you think the Arab world thought of us arming and building up Iran as a military power in the 60's and 70's? The Shah and his CIA backed secret police were brutal and the Iranian people had enough. Who do you think they blamed? When that went bad and the Iranians rose up and overthrew the Shah in 1979 we turned to Iraq.

We created Saddam's military power. We made him the neighborhood bully. We were seen as a corrupting force meddling in the region fostering the bloody war between Saddam and our former ally Iran. We gave Saddam his chemical weapons. We greenlighted his use of them against the Iranians and turned a blind eye when he used them on the Kurds in 1987.

When we broke with Iraq in 1990 and began the military build up in Saudi Arabia, what do you think that looked like? The Saudi Royal family leads one of the region's most brutal and oppressive regimes. To the poverty stricken Arabs the thought of a repeat of Iran or Iraq in the holy land is just too much.

So as long as we are treating the symptoms the underlying cause continues to fester. The invasion of Iraq was a colossal blunder. It confirmed decades of anti-American rhetoric and predictions. We proved we are what they say we are.

12:43 PM, November 27, 2005  
Blogger Cranky Yankee said...

Osama Bin Laden has sanctioned and supported criminal attacks against people all over the world. He should be caught and punished. He is a disease on the global movement for the elevation of third world poor. That is also a crime for which he should be punished. The U.S. has an obligation to pursue and prosecute him to the fullest extent. We have failed. We are mired in a quagmire that was concocted by a greedy cabal at the expense of the truth and the global war on terrorism. At this point we have several steps backward for every step of progress made during the initial campaign against Al Qaeda.

The following are Osama Bin Laden's own words stating his purpose is to drive foreign infidel, led by the Americans, from the Muslim holy lands and to render them incapable or unwilling to interfere in the internal affairs of the greater Arab Nation.

Osama bin Laden in His Own Words:

September 23, 2001 - "We hope that these brothers (Muslim casualties in Pakistan) are among the first martyrs in Islam's battle in this era against the new Christian-Jewish crusade led by the big crusader Bush under the flag of the Cross; this battle is considered one of Islam's battles... (text illegible)
We ask Allah to make him (Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar) victorious over the forces of infidels and tyranny, and to crush the new Christian-Jewish crusade on the land of Pakistan and Afghanistan... "

Summer 2001 - A videotape circulating in the Middle East features bin Laden reciting a victory poem about the USS Cole bombing, and then issues a call to arms: "To all the Mujah: Your brothers in Palestine are waiting for you; it's time to penetrate America and Israel and hit them where it hurts the most."

January 1999 – In an interview with bin Laden published in Newsweek: "Muslim scholars have issued a fatwa [a religious order] against any American who pays taxes to his government. He is our target because he is helping the American war machine against the Muslim nation."
"The [International Front of Islamic Movements, an alliance of extremist organizations created by bin Laden] is an umbrella to all organizations fighting the jihad against Jews and the crusaders. The response from Muslim nations has been greater than we expected. We are urging all of them to start fighting, or at least to start preparing to fight, against the enemies of Islam."
In an interview published in Time the same week (from a December 1998 ABC News interview with bin Laden): "If the instigation for jihad against the Jews and the Americans in order to liberate al-Aksa Mosque and the Holy Ka’aba [Islamic shrines in Jerusalem and Saudi Arabia] is considered a crime, then let history be a witness that I am a criminal.
Hostility toward America is a religious duty, and we hope to be rewarded for it by God"

May 1998 - Bin Laden issued a statement entitled "The Nuclear Bomb of Islam," under the banner of the "International Islamic Front for Fighting the Jews and Crusaders," in which he stated that "it is the duty of Muslims to prepare as much force as possible to terrorize the enemies of God."

February 1998 - Under the banner of the "International Islamic Front for Jihad on the Jews and Crusaders," bin Laden endorsed a fatwa, religious decree, to call for the liberation of Muslim holy places in Saudi Arabia and Israel, as well as the death of Americans and their allies. The decree says, "These crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on God, his messenger and Muslims."

May 1997 - During an interview with CNN, bin Laden reaffirms his call for a holy war against Americans. "We have focused our declaration of jihad on the U.S. soldiers inside Arabia…The U.S. government has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal through its support of the Israeli occupation of Palestine."

Bin Laden in an interview with CNN’s Peter Arnett: "If the American government is serious about avoiding the explosions inside the US, then let it stop provoking the feelings of 1,250 million Muslims. Those hundreds of thousands who have been killed or displaced in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, do have brothers and relatives. They would make of Ramzi Yousef [convicted for his role in 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center] a symbol and a teacher. The US will drive them to transfer the battle into the United States."

May 1997 - Bin Laden reaffirmed his call for a holy war against Americans. "The US Government has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal through its support of the Israeli occupation of Palestine"

February 1997 - Bin Laden threatens holy war against the U.S. in an interview on the British documentary program, Dispatches. "This war will not only be between the people of the two sacred mosques and the Americans, but it will be between the Islamic world and the Americans and their allies because this war is a new crusade led by America against the Islamic nations."

November 1996 - Bin Laden issues an ultimatum to the U.S. and Western countries with troops stationed in Arab countries and declares a holy war against the "enemy." "Had we wanted to carry out small operations after our threat statement, we would have been able to… We thought that the two bombings in Riyadh and Dhahran would be enough (sic.) a signal to the wise U.S. decision-makers to avoid the real confrontation with the Islamic nation, but it seems they did not understand it."

November 1996 - Bin Laden warns U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia to expect more "effective, qualitative" attacks and advises Western forces to speed their "departure" from the Middle East.

August 1996 - Bin Laden says to the London-based al-Quds al-Arabi newspaper that the Saudis have a "legitimate right" to attack the5,000 American military personnel stationed in Saudi Arabia. "The presence of the American crusader armed forces in the countries of the Islamic Gulf is the greatest danger and the biggest harm that threatens the world’s largest oil reserves… The infidels must be thrown out of the Arabian Peninsula." (these are the infidels he has a problem with)

August 1996 - Bin Laden issued a Declaration of jihad, holy war, entitled: "Message from Osama bin Laden to his Muslim Brothers in the Whole World and Especially in the Arabian Peninsula: Declaration of Jihad Against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Mosques; Expel the Heretics from the Arabian Peninsula."

August 1996 In an interview with The Independent, a London daily, bin Laden calls the June 1995 truck bomb in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia" the beginning of war between Muslims and the United States."

July 1996 - Bin Laden warns that the terrorists who bombed American soldiers in Saudi Arabia will also attack British and French military personnel. He said "[the bomb in Dhahran] was the result of American behavior against Muslims, its support of Jews in Palestine, and the massacre of Muslims in Palestine and Lebanon."

Guess where this came from? The Anti-Defamation League I know it may conflict with your reality, but the leading America Jewish defense organization agrees with me. Read it yourself

Are we done here?

2:40 PM, November 27, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

you say i rant about al qaeda and hitler's fascism.

25 years ago the muslim brotherhood was a fascist organization that was hired by western intelligence. this brotherhood developed into what we now know as al qaeda...

... the founder of this organization was an egyptian, al bana. in the 1920's, being a great admirer of hitler, often writing him, he formed this national group the muslim brotherhood and in the '30's al bana and his brotherhood became a secret arm of nazi intelligence...

they had a lot in common the nazi arabs and the nazi. they still do:

They hated Jews; they hated democracy; and they hated the Western culture. it became the official policy of the Third Reich to secretly develop the muslim brotherhood as the fifth Parliament, an army inside egypt.

after the war the Brits sold the arab nazis to the predecessor of what became the CIA. It may sound stupid, Cranky, especially to someone so enlightened as yourself; it may sound evil, but it did happen. the idea was that we were going to use the Arab Nazis in the Middle East as a counterweight to the Arab communists. before you hop all over this hysterically screaming that america is sick for this deal, can't you see we were counter weighing the Soviet Union and it's funding of the Arab communists? we kept the Muslim Brotherhood on our payroll. you'll probably only see a dark side to this agreement, but lemme remind you cranky hindsight is 20/20, especially in your case...

during the 1950's, the CIA moved the Muslim Brotherhood to Saudi Arabia. Here is where Azzam and some of his other bros became the teachers in the Madrasas, the religious schools. And there they combined the doctrines of nazism with this weird Islamic cult, Wahhabiism. is this sounding familiar, Cranky? Ringing a bell? No... okay, I'll continue...

In 1979 the CIA decided to take the arab nazis out of cold storage. The russians had invaded afghanistan, so we told the Saudis that we would fund them if they would bring all of the arab nazis together and ship them off to afghanistan to fight the Russians. we had to rename them. We changed their name to "Maktab al Khidimat il Mujahideen", the MAK...

and we now know that the CIA lied to congress, said they didn't know who was on our payroll in afghanistan, except the saudis. kinda true, but like you, the truth had lots of shades of ambiguity...

azzam and his right hand fella, a tall, ugly creature named osama bin laden rose to the top from '79 and '89. they won the war, beat the ruskies (being a semi-commie yourself- i believe you said something about a nader-kerry type being your ideal candidate- that must sting, no?).

after the win, our prob was we said foolishly, "we won," and we went home, leaving these fascists to fester in the hot desert sun... (oh wait, why am i rambling about fascism? oh wait, that's right, they are fascists!)

so internal war began: saudis cut deals, bribed the bin ladenster to stay out of saudi arabia. the mak broke off into two groups, the binster himself supposedly knocked off his pal azzam and in and around this time he took the most radical of the mergerer between the arab fascists and the religious extremists and called them al qaeda...

sorry about this rambling and unfocused post. i guess you're right, there's no comparison between my wild accusation that nazi germany and al qaeda are similar in so many, many ways. you're right cranky. my bad. time to pour myself a drink...

when i'm nice and drunk i'll write some more rambling posts, i'm sure...

2:57 PM, November 27, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

sorry, just saw your last post... you've missed my point entirely, way out in left field as they say: yes, cranky, al qaeda has waged a war against us 'cause of occupation. i know this, if you read anything i have said.

however, you and bin laden have something very much in common: you fail to hold the extremist muslim land responsible for the atrocities they have commited on their own people (as i have quoted too much in my previous posts) and have instead, zero'd in on america and only america.

as i said before crankster, actions speak louder than words and you and the fascists are quite quiet on the muslim on muslim violence and instead, all of them join forces with misguided cranky yankees to go after and hold only america responsible for everything that is wrong in the middle east.

so go on cranky, continue ignoring the history of the violence these people have shamed upon themselves. keep saying they're all in whatever poverty-stricken positions because of america allying herself with the wrong people. keep repeating it, cranky and let it soothe you into another sleepy dillusion...

i hope this is finally clear to you cranky...

3:06 PM, November 27, 2005  
Blogger Cranky Yankee said...

"equador? why bother..."

Ah, because they are infidels?
Show a little consistency. Didn't you say they want to take over the world and destroy all the infidels?

3:07 PM, November 27, 2005  
Blogger Cranky Yankee said...

"yes, cranky, al qaeda has waged a war against us 'cause of occupation. i know this,"

Ah, that felt good.


3:10 PM, November 27, 2005  
Blogger Cranky Yankee said...

I never said Muslim haven't committed violent acts against each other. That is another argument and is not why they hate America. So avoiding one argument by making another is a nice way to avoid the central point. Thank you for finally coming around and admitting I was right.

It was a long road but I knew if I stayed focused I could eventually get you to admit the truth. You do a good job of throwing up a lot of bullshit to try to get mem off course. But I fall back on my military training and stay focused on nthe mission.

All of your arguments, nazis, marxist, martians, whatever are all peripheral. I could write volumes on the history of Islamic Extremism and you would proably agree with most of it. The point is how it applies to us in this specific instance.

My point is, "yes, cranky, al qaeda has waged a war against us 'cause of occupation. i know this,"

Are we through?

3:18 PM, November 27, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

and p.s...

who is free of the "world infidel" label?

documented quotes will help, of course...

so while you find this for me, i'm gonna go out and get on with that thing called living. you should try it some time, maybe you won't be so cranky in your self-righteous anger and posturing, your screaming of rhetoric...

but please, don't do this until you have found documented quotes releasing those countries of the label "world infidels."

and please don't come back with the simple: we're all infidels... because yes, yes we are. but, as i said, binster-baby wants to spread across the world his hate and you denied this. and then, from his own quote he calls for the punishment of the "world infidels."

so, if he's not trying to incite his hatred and ideology globally, as he says he is, why don't you tell us what's going on thru bin's mind.

but you, in your arrogance have simplified his thinking. essentially, anything on any given day could all of a sudden piss off bin laden, be deemed as offensive. like those budhist sculptures the taleban decided to destroy... people like you have given him license and the terrorists license to claim anything is an insult to islam.

for god sake, our way of living, just existing is offensive to these fascists. so, no matter what we do, they will always find something they will need to "cleanse" from our culture...

oh well, back to sunday night drinkin' and rush on the radio!

3:23 PM, November 27, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

i'm going to say a prayer for you cranky... and i'm not even religious!

i just now lift a glass: "to living!"

is it easy to pretend you weren't just suffocated with reams of facts that you claim "victory"? god, that's weird. anyways, think what you want, cranky, you need to sleep tonight.

but if you look over everything i have said, and i should clarify this point, i understand that you think we are only attacked because of occupation. i also think that some of these guys out there think that too...

... but if they were such an honorable people, as you seem to think, then they would stop aiming their guns at america and aim it at the tyrants that have continously swept thru the middle east...

and if you've now decided that you're gonna ignore history, both past and recent, then fine with me. to appease your dillusion: yes, america is bad. the problems of the middle east are a result of american imperialism...

... hold on a sec, just washing the barf outta my mouth...

... and not the fault of those that have "governed" there.

wow, am i completely re-educated now cranky?

3:34 PM, November 27, 2005  
Blogger Cranky Yankee said...

People from Ecuador according to you are not "world Infidels."

rant the losers lament all you want, but the importatn thing is, "yes, cranky, al qaeda has waged a war against us 'cause of occupation. i know this,"

3:35 PM, November 27, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

never said that cranky, putting words in my mouth again... ignorance is bliss, my friend...

3:44 PM, November 27, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

p.s... but i forgot, your game is "semaaantix!"

3:48 PM, November 27, 2005  
Blogger Cranky Yankee said...

Ok Ecuador then. Are they part of the "world infidels?"

Breath, you need to get some oxygen to that thing between your ears.

3:51 PM, November 27, 2005  
Blogger Cranky Yankee said...

I knew the whole thing was going to come back and bite us in the ass back in 1985. I was unloading a plane load of Stinger missiles and other weapons in Peshawar Pakistin unto old beat up trucks with these strange looking Afghan rebels. These were some grizzled battle hardened bad asses. You could tell they were not to be fucked with. I remember remarking to the American that was with them how ethincally diverse they were. He said he didn't think any of them were Afghans. They did seem to know the weapons well. The fuckers bummed all my smokes.


4:21 PM, November 27, 2005  
Anonymous peter said...

okay, i'm beginning to think you're a frustrated, unpublished author, a hundred manuscripts shoved into your desk drawer... but at least your funny...

5:45 PM, November 27, 2005  
Blogger Cranky Yankee said...

I have a million stories, all true. There is a movie coming out soon about a guy I worked with toward the end of my career.

3:49 AM, November 28, 2005  

Post a Comment

<< Home